StratoNexus

Heh. I play a bit reckless. I love to see how much trouble I can get into and if we can pull me out of it (and I like when other players on the team do the same). Usually other players find this enjoyable, but I admit some prefer a slower style and I'll (almost always) respect the team lead, but I also (almost always) leave a slower team after that mission.

Heck, if I eat the alpha with my blaster and live, that makes it easier for the tank to deal with what is left, right? Right??? I'm not crazy!

Here is the post you were seeking.

It is actually incorrect to assume team buffs give more to a brute than a tanker. Because tankers have a higher damage modifier, +dam buffs are actually more potent on a tanker until the cap is reached. Contrary to popular misconception, that is not a hugely frequent occurrence.

Since tankers have more HPs, extra mitigation can favor them as well, since the mitigation is magnified by the higher HPs. I concede that tankers will reach caps quicker since they start off higher, so in that sense, brutes can get more out of team buffs, but only because they need more.

Not necessarily. To me this is like organizing and starting a trial. All I want is a time frame, so I can wander around the house until the green button comes up. If I wanted someone to PL me while I am afk, all I'd want is to know how long until I need to be at the keyboard to exit and re-enter. If you say 30 minutes, then every 30 minutes I can come back, do the clicks, and then wander around again. If you say 20 minutes, that would work too. If you say 50 minutes, that would work too. Just knowing and honoring the time is what would be important, I'd think.

Yay. I prefer how your character looks for this shot relative to any of mine.

Are we talking about her DA arc?

Dog-pile on the influence?

So a blaster should be able to do it from Melee range and that would be alright!

I do not think the ratio of time spent mezzed between a scrapper and a blaster relative to their in combat time is going to give us a reasonable number to determine what type of damage ratio they should have. It might be interesting information though.

Is it wrong for other people to use this?

Actually, for the most part, tanker sets do decent AoE. Stone, Energy, MA, and Dark are the stand-outs that lack AoE (maybe Axe).

Hmmm. Just because 6 are not worse does not mean it is below average. What is the average effectiveness of a defender primary? Can one really do a straight 1-12 ranking that honestly applies across a wide range of the playerbase and the wide range of play/playstyles? I honestly think there is too much overlap and personal preference in how defender primaries function to really do a strong, non-controversial straight ranking.

For example, here is my personal view:
I'd rank Cold and Rad as the two best with a possible nod to Time, but I do not have enough experience with Time yet to say that for sure.

Next tier would be Dark and Traps (and Traps for me really belongs with Cold and Rad, but I think it falls short in enough people's hands that its actual performance is at this strata), and then maybe Time (if it doesn't belong above).

Next would be Kin, Emp, Storm, and Thermal. They all have varying strengths and weaknesses but are much more limited than than 5 sets above.

Finally are the more narrow Sonic, TA, and FF, which are all very strong at what they do, but are more focused.

The above doesn't really support the assertion of Empathy as below average, however it also does not present a strong case against it.

To support your view of below average, a straight ranking might be (and I think a lot of these overlap more than a straight ranking allows, but for conversation):
1) Rad
2) Cold
3) Time
4) Traps
5) Dark
6) Kin
7) Storm
8) Emp
9) Thermal
10) TA
11) Sonic
12) FF

For me, everything from 4 (or 3) to 9 is average, 1-2 (or 3) are noticeably stronger in a wide range of play and players. 10-12 are more limited in scope and while strong in their areas, could likely use some more breadth.

/bind lshift+click "powexec_name teleport"

My Fire/Dark blaster uses the following:
/bind lshift+click "powexec_name Rain of Fire"
/bind lctrl+click "powexec_name Spring Attack"

Hold shift and I get a reticle, when I click, Rain of Fire activates.
Hold control and I get a reticle, when I click, Spring Attack activates.

Edit: curses, too slow.

The truth always comes out in the end!

True. The devs have repeatedly altered ATs by adding damage, like they have done for tankers three times over the game history (more if you include buffs to individual powersets). I likely should stop fighting against that trend, but I have this notion that people should want blasters and scrappers on a team because they deal better damage than everyone else. This may be outdated thinking, as you and others have noted. I prefer the team game and I like roles (not hard, strict ones, but at least noticeable if wishy-washy roles).

I love that CoH does not require the "trinity". But I also like when there is value to the roles within the trinity. I think the game as it exists now still has that and I am glad.

I think damage caps (as well as some other caps) across all ATs ought to be reviewed in the near future (as well as base values of at least damage). I am not particularly for or against any hypothetical tanker alteration that isn't, "give them more damage." I am not even truly against some things that might give them more damage, although I'd be hesitant. However, since I like tankers as is, I am hesitant to want the devs to spend time on the AT beyond new powersets and IOs.

You are looking at this only from your viewpoint. Consider the perspective where one may think tankers are as good as brutes (I know that is not your usual outlook, but pretend the modest extra survivability and the modestly superior aggro generation actually matters to you (and pretend they are modest instead of negligible, if you must)). I am not making excuses for brutes that allow them to be better than tankers. I am making excuses for why tankers are as good as brutes.

Except you know tankers have modestly better potential survivability and, even if you deny this latter one, they have better survivability in general teaming situations as well.

My position is that brutes and tankers are different and should remain that way. I do not believe that brutes are better than tankers. I do not think we should all just play brutes. I think those who feel the brute AT has what they are looking for should play that AT and not change the tanker AT to be more brute-like. I could accept tanker changes that helped differentiate them from brutes, but you only seem to want more damage. If that is what you want, you got it. Play a brute.

It is a game where balance is important. You do not get to handwave away tanker advantages over brutes while stressing brute's one advantage over tankers. If you do not like the tanker's advantages or feel they are not useful to you and your playstyle, but think the brute's higher damage is awesome, play a brute.

I like tankers more than brutes. Tankers should not be made the same as brutes because you like brutes more than tankers. Play a brute.

While Ion was not always like this, it has been like this for a long time now. I wan to say at least nine months, but I am not positive of the exact time frame when the ability to double jump was removed. However, I am pretty sure nothing has changed in the last month or even 4 months.

Actually, you would be hurting the feelings of posters and possibly thread starters. There have been some thread locks of late that do not make sense to me. Necroing an older thread to continue discussion after some time has passed doesn't seem like a bad thing to me outside of select situations. But if it is going to get modded just because it is a necro, then this should be locked and a new thread can be made to continue the same discussion.

I don't think this thread should be locked. But I could say that about a fair number of necro locks I have seen recently.

Irrelevant. The important thing is that all of our gameplay options have been improved. We can all enjoy brutes if that is our preference. Tankers should not be made into brutes just because they existed first.

I am pretty sure the ATs do not have feelings. Why should blasters represent characters who have strong offense but tankers denied it? Why should dominators represent those who manipulate and control others but scrappers are denied it? Honestly. "Bah! AT X does what I want, why can't AT Y do the same thing?" That is the line of discussion you want to take?

Yeah and VEATs are everything blasters could have been but with narrower concepts allowable. In game design you are going to make elements that you end up not using or choose to re-purpose elsewhere. Get over it. The tanker AT is not a living entity that had something stolen from it and now feels upset. Your argument made a little sense pre-GR. Not anymore. Play brutes and be happy.

Have you paid your dues? The check is in the mail. Really? We are all the same players. My tankers are not is any way jealous of brutes nor has my territory been crowded out. I have been on teams with plenty of both ATs and somehow they never seemed be causing some kind of territorial blowup.

Tankers fearing brutes. So sad. So unnecessary. Maybe you just need to lose the fear and instead enjoy both ATs (or pick one and enjoy that if you can't do both).

While on the one hand, I agree that soloing is the easiest and quickest way to get everything out of a story, I disagree it is the only way. Arcs with a solid story and lots of details have great replay value not just because of strong gameplay scenarios but also because of the details you missed on previous runs through. The STF is a good example of details (even if it is not the greatest storytelling). It took me many runs through it before I really heard all the AV dialog. Since I often do not stealth the vine mission when I lead, I have heard delighted surprise many times from pickups at finding the villain respec team since they had never seen it before.

It is my opinion that even team oriented arcs and task forces should have lots of details that you will miss. At some point, you will not miss a detail and it is like finding money you forgot about. Trials are about the only place I'd expect and forgive thin story since they are generally a climatic battle scenario. That said, UGT and MoM have a fair amount of storytelling packed into them.

If there were no rewards and no ability to level and grow Alts, I'd stick around for the once a month new content and for some of the repeatable stuff. One or two STFs, one or two trials, one or two of the other TFs, 3 to 5 new missions just from the SSA, any other new missions on a less frequent basis, maybe an Ouro arc here and there.

That is plenty of RoI for my sub. When I think about, sometimes I'd prefer to play character A, but instead grab character B, because B needs the reward (so the reward is taking me in a direction I'd not have gone otherwise). This doesn't happen often, because usually my desire to play what I want far exceeds my desire for a reward I want, but it does happen sometimes.

That said, I really like growing new alts and prefer playing through content at the natural level to running Ouro.

Tankers just push taunt and that is all. I see. Interesting playstyle.

Look. It is one thing to say brutes do more damage. It is another to pretend tankers do none. Tankers I team with add meaningful damage and control (in the form of control and aggro generation). Just because the damage is less, does not make it meaningless. Tankers are not one trick ponies.

*Looks at Granite and Rooted*
Oh, it can be. I'd rather it be used sparingly and not on all armor sets.

I don't ever recall playing a table top game where fighters or babarians or many other derivatives were considered poor offense. Possibly slower or plodding but not low damage. Once this got translated into computer games, it may have changed (and it seems like it did to an extent), but I don't even know if all or most fantasy computer RPGs end up with their armored characters being low offense.

Heh, not low damage, but certainly plodding. Different games use different methods to balance. Considering how the heavy can be picked off due to its lack of mobility, I do not think it is necessarily comparable to CoH tankers. Would you prefer to go back to Unyielding Stance in exchange for more damage?

And again, in many of those games mobility is a real weakness. Also air power. But, primarily, those games are not even the same kind of game; where one would consider how the player of the infantry guy feels compared to the player of the tank and its entire crew. Different games have different goals and balance points. Why doesn't the car get to go faster than the thimble in Monopoly?

That is likely only because those are primarily what exists.

Playing follow the leader and adapting comic conventions to a game can be the same thing. When choosing how to adapt comic book conventions into an MMO space, CoH invented a great deal on its own (purposely and accidentally) and borrowed a lot from what already existed. The latter is not the bad thing you paint it to be, but rather smart work (especially when you consider how long the game has lasted). They have also evolved a lot over the years, rather than just staying in what you call an outdated design (I am not convinced a game that lacks team roles is a good thing to aspire to be). Finally, how you perceive comics and its conventions is not necessarily the only viewpoint that exists.